I personally disagree with loco. It is more because I auto-x, reguarless of what turbo you have there is turbo lag, and it messes up launch speed on a FWD veichle which already has problems launching. When you auto-x you are in first and second gear for the most part, and granted a lot of that will be in the turbo, but you need the power through out the RPMs and that is where the blower really works its magic. So what if they blower does not make stupid fast crazy dyno numbers all them time like a lot of turbo applications do, it makes the power where it counts. For super chargers check out Jackson Racing, and ask your self what you want with car, straight line speed, daily drive ability, auto-x, road course, ect.

go with a turbo pound for pound they are a much better upgrade less heat, not limited to rpms more fuel efficient and unlike a turbocharger a supercharger is kind of pointless to run unless you already have a pretty damn beefy powerplant

a properly sized turbo for a low- power upgrade (like the jackson at its stock 6 pounds) will be fully spooled on a b-series by 2500 rpms. if you're under 2500 rpms on an autox course, you did something wrong, or are in the wrong gear.

Originally posted by pissedoffsol@Apr 12 2004, 02:31 AM a properly sized turbo for a low- power upgrade (like the jackson at its stock 6 pounds) will be fully spooled on a b-series by 2500 rpms. if you're under 2500 rpms on an autox course, you did something wrong, or are in the wrong gear.

Click to expand...

Ditto for drag racing and daily driving. Explain to me how and RPM driven sytem is superior to a turbo. You think the low end torque helps you launch? It will hurl your moment of inertia to the rear of your car so fast that you'll get whiplash from the wheelhop.

For almost all sport compact applications, a turbocharger is a wiser choice. You can do a centrifical or roots type blower. They're easy to install and stupid easy to tune, but the high heat and related low compressor efficency will give you problems down the road (Read: Detonation).

A Turbocharger will make the same power as a supercharger. CFM is CFM. Or you could deal with:

CFM>3000 RPM

to

CFM-Heat-Belt/Shaft Drag>1500 RPM

That's why boost level is arbitrary. 6lbs of pressure on a turbocharger is a whole different ballgame than 6lbs on a supercharger that soaks up a good amount of the engine's original power.

If you want to be unique/tow boats/wheel hop down the track - Then a supercharger is for you.

If you want free power in useful areas of your powerband - Them I'm pretty sure a turbocharger can suit your needs. There's a reason they are more popular.

IMO, that article is biased--it's basically trashing SC's in every form...Anyways, back to your questions...Type R pistons and turbo aren't an ideal setup, but...If you are looking for a decent upgrade, get an SC...It depends on what you are going to use it for, and how much HP you want.

Steve ran a 13.9 with a JRSC and exhaust in an otherwise stock 99 Civic Si.

Response?

Click to expand...

UHM, CONGRATULATIONS?
lol

to each his own, but i think turbos are far superior as far as horsepower robbed from motor vs horsepower produced...

and who wants to wait till redline to see max boost from a supercharger?

Click to expand...

That's what you should have said the 1st time, not"SC's are fucking garbage" or whatever.

And SC improves power all around, unlike turbos with their "badass" lag....an S2K with a turbo feels like a D15B7 for about 2K rpms. Some turbo lag isn't noticeable at all, others you can defintely tell.

Steve ran a 13.9 with a JRSC and exhaust in an otherwise stock 99 Civic Si.

Response?

Click to expand...

Yeah, with that much invested, he should be faster, my buddy has a B16 no boost, gutted car and revs to 8'800. He runs 13.7 w/ drag slicks. throw a JRSC on that and he would blow "steve" away. Just saying. I was thinking JRSC. then I got a reality check, money/effic. and realized turbo was the way to go. But I guess there are the occassional people out there who don't want to get there hands dirty by having to work with oil supply lines though. Turbo is the way to go.

Steve ran a 13.9 with a JRSC and exhaust in an otherwise stock 99 Civic Si.

Response?

Click to expand...

UHM, CONGRATULATIONS?
lol

to each his own, but i think turbos are far superior as far as horsepower robbed from motor vs horsepower produced...

and who wants to wait till redline to see max boost from a supercharger?

Click to expand...

what? superchargers are known for having instant boost. Which is why you see them on big V6 and V8s. Instant boost=crazy low end torque.

Since when did Honda have any low end torque...or torque at all for that matter?

Superchargers belong on cars with BIG engines that need low end grunt called torque, turbos are for small engine applications, and as you've read, if you do your homework right, the correct turbo size will allow you to have full boost as low as 2500 or so rpm. That is MINIMAL lag since most people launch at 3000+ anyway.

Superchargers are for V6s, small and big block V8s, and wanna be boys that think they're cool to be different.

SC's are good for a bump in power across the board, and they are better for low end torque bumps...
but a SC has lets say 1 pound boost at idle, then a direct correlation to a 6 pound boost at 7 or 8K redline
so at 3K you may have around 2 or 3 pounds boost?
and then from 3 to 6 between 3K and 8K redline
with a turbo you'll have 2 pounds boost at appox 1500K, and the a full 8 pounds boost from 2500 to redline
turbo just makes more sense to me and just about everyone else thats into forced induction for hondas...

and besides that, you can make your own turbo setup, and i have heard so many horror stories regarding both vortech and jackson racing, i would never run the risk on any of my motors...

and like i said before, if you are that concerned with lag put an injector right off the head in the turbo mani... you will NEVER have lag...